If a team(in doubles, trips, or quads) were to capture and hold either of the 4 capitals do they win the game? Me and my partner recently achieved this with the 4 Entente capitals and the game didn't end. Just wondering if in team games this meets the objective. (or if it is supposed to)

If a team(in doubles, trips, or quads) were to capture and hold either of the 4 capitals do they win the game? Me and my partner recently achieved this with the 4 Entente capitals and the game didn't end. Just wondering if in team games this meets the objective. (or if it is supposed to)

This is a great map indeed, very fun to play, challenging and enjoyable.

The only constructive comment I can offer is that I don't understand why France offers 5 troops while when holding it you need to defend only 3 territories, while Germany offers also 5, when you need to defend all 6 territories. Also, the Balkans offer only 3 troops (2 less than France) but they have the same amount of territories to capture as France, while you need to defend 5 territories to hold them, 2 more than France! So shouldn't really France offer 3 troops and the Balkans 5?

I think this makes France very enticing and easy to capture and hold, and works the opposite for the Balkans. Meanwhile, Italy and the Ottoman empire also offer 3 troops, but with 3 territories to defend (while the Ottoman empire has 7 territories and Italy 5).

Don't get me wrong, this is still a fun map to play, but I wonder on why there such a grave imbalance between the bonuses offered...

This is a great map indeed, very fun to play, challenging and enjoyable.

The only constructive comment I can offer is that I don't understand why France offers 5 troops while when holding it you need to defend only 3 territories, while Germany offers also 5, when you need to defend all 6 territories. Also, the Balkans offer only 3 troops (2 less than France) but they have the same amount of territories to capture as France, while you need to defend 5 territories to hold them, 2 more than France! So shouldn't really France offer 3 troops and the Balkans 5?

I think this makes France very enticing and easy to capture and hold, and works the opposite for the Balkans. Meanwhile, Italy and the Ottoman empire also offer 3 troops, but with 3 territories to defend (while the Ottoman empire has 7 territories and Italy 5).

Don't get me wrong, this is still a fun map to play, but I wonder on why there such a grave imbalance between the bonuses offered...

You may want to recount your France.

N. france - Belgium - S. France - Corsica.

Other issues that contribute to the value is that it borders 3 bonus regions with a 4th one 1 tert away. Thats 5 terts to defend against (6 counting Bay of Biscay). And 3 of the French terts normally start as a neutral.

I do agree Balkans should be worth more (4) but other than that it's right on.

This post was made by jefjef who should be on your ignore list.

drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".

The map Europe 1914 is totally unbalanced for 2 players... The first player can wipe out the second player, there r too many units for him in the first round. 15 territories r too much, 9 or 10 would be more appropriate.

GoranZ wrote:The map Europe 1914 is totally unbalanced for 2 players... The first player can wipe out the second player, there r too many units for him in the first round. 15 territories r too much, 9 or 10 would be more appropriate.

GoranZ wrote:The map Europe 1914 is totally unbalanced for 2 players... The first player can wipe out the second player, there r too many units for him in the first round. 15 territories r too much, 9 or 10 would be more appropriate.

2 player game is favored for 1st mover. But that is part of the challenge. He took 3 terts from you 1st round. He had a good drop and GREAT dice. 3 tert conquers in first round rarely happens.

As for not having 1st move I have won many on this map moving 2nd.

I haven't played a lot of games but for example in Feudal War being first mean that u will move first and the advantage is minimal if there is any... That's why I proposed reducing the number of colonies to reduce the luck factor, after all the fun is in the skill and not in the dice... I'm sure that there isn't a player skillful enough to win in my situation even with the same luck as my opponents(which was huge)...

It's really nice map, but for 2 players game, I think the territories for each player should be reduced to 14... as is now, it's highly likely if playing first to get 1 territory (8 to 3 is not bad odds) and your opponent to start the game with substantial handicap.

Just a small map suggestion. In Europe 1914 I totally see the sense in cyrpus not able to be attacked by turkey. (No navy back then). I also see the sense in Cyprus not having an unfettered ability to attack turkey. But....(always the but)....if England holds Cyprus then why shouldn't Cyprus then be able to attack. In effect that would then mirror the historical position. It would also enhance functionality as a map.

Map suggestions should be posted into the map thread.If one of the suggestion mods will move this topic into the foundry I can merge it with the map thread.

I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.All PMs are autobinned. If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.Thanks to those who helped me through the years.

I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.All PMs are autobinned. If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.Thanks to those who helped me through the years.

I've played recently a 1 VS 1 game on this one, and the one who start gets a clear advantage starting with 5 troops due... Could we get a lower nombers of territories at the start for both players? 14 each could lead to a more equilibrate game... Just 2 more neutral...

I've played recently a 1 VS 1 game on this one, and the one who start gets a clear advantage starting with 5 troops due... Could we get a lower nombers of territories at the start for both players? 14 each could lead to a more equilibrate game... Just 2 more neutral...

Thanks for your advice

Mishalex

I'd be willing to modify the code if qwert can suggest which regions(s) he'd prefer to be coded neutral.

I'll admit I thought it would originally screw up quads games by lowering it to 4 (first turn eliminations, and such) but adding three more neutral only helps the starting positions. I don't know if qwert will go for it, though.

It needs to be thought about pretty good though, 3 neutrals could change how people go for bonuses pretty good.

I'll talk with qwert to understand what he thinks. Afterall it's his map and he should have the final say on this.I'll let you know soon about what he wants to do.

Nobodies

I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.All PMs are autobinned. If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.Thanks to those who helped me through the years.

He is not ok with change the map to better suit 1vs1 games.Even if the change is minor and it doesn't require any effort on his part, he has made a valid point about the fact that such change is not required.Well in some cases there could be a small advantage for a player in 1vs1 games, but the map plays well in all other cases so we can't say that if we don't change it the map is unplayable or unfriendly.

So, considering that I totally respect qwert and his work as mapmaker for this site and considering his reasonable answer, the map must stay as it is now.

No updates will be allowed or uploaded (on my part) without his approval.Afterall it's his map.

Nobodies

I do NOT visit this site and I'm NOT Team CC anymore.All PMs are autobinned. If you need to contact me, you should already have a way to do it without using this site.Thanks to those who helped me through the years.

He is not ok with change the map to better suit 1vs1 games.Even if the change is minor and it doesn't require any effort on his part, he has made a valid point about the fact that such change is not required.Well in some cases there could be a small advantage for a player in 1vs1 games, but the map plays well in all other cases so we can't say that if we don't change it the map is unplayable or unfriendly.

So, considering that I totally respect qwert and his work as mapmaker for this site and considering his reasonable answer, the map must stay as it is now.

No updates will be allowed or uploaded (on my part) without his approval.Afterall it's his map.